Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The following is a Final Office Action. Claims 1-7, 9-10 are rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant respectfully submits that such a manner of improvement to computer functionality amounts to "significantly more" than an abstract idea, in the similar manner as the Example 21. Claim 2 of Transmission of Stock Quote Data, where the USPTO found that the method of distributing stock quotes addresses the computer-based challenge of alerting a subscriber with time sensitive information and thus provides "unconventional steps that confine the abstract idea to a particular useful application." See also, Examples 1-36 (issued between December 16, 2014 through December 15, 2016).
Examiner responds in Claim 21, the final limitation, “wherein the alert activates the stock viewer application to cause the stock quote alert to display on the remote subscriber computer and to enable connection via the URL to the data source over the Internet when the wireless device is locally connected to the remote subscriber computer and the remote subscriber computer comes online” were meaningful limitations that added more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea (the general concept of organizing and comparing data) to the Internet, because they solve an Internet‐centric problem with a claimed solution that is necessarily rooted in computer technology, similar to the additional elements in DDR Holdings.
In the instant claims the added limitation, “in response to activation of a product order screen to display the product order screen on the display device, the product order screen including a plurality of product display fields in which product information and one or more operable objects to designate a number of orders are displayed for each of a plurality of orderable products, which includes the detected product, display a marker associated with the detected product on the product ordering screen, the marker indicating that increased demand is expected for the detected product and located at a position corresponding to a product display field for the detected product, and in response to selection of the marker, cause the display device to display a demand forecasting screen for the detected product, the demand forecasting screen indicating a correlation of the product sales data of the detected product with the expected demand for the detected product,” are types of limitations that generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment as the limitations recites generic and routine display functions for displaying information directed to basic functions of display technology, and do not improve the technical field of visualization.
Objections
Claim 1 and 10, fourth limitation, recite, “acquire ‘the” number of searches of the detected product....”
Examiner suggests changing this limitation to: “acquire a number of searches of the detected product”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, Claims 1-7, 9-10 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 and 10 includes limitations for forecasting demand for a product including:
Detect...a product whose number of sales is increasing...
Acquire the number of searches of the detected product...
Calculate a proportion of positive reviews about the detected product...
Determine that increased demand for the detected product in the wide area can be expected...
The elements above recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the identified elements recite an abstract idea relating to Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because the steps (ie. generating and determining) can be performed in the human mind, and relating to Certain methods of organizing human activity because the claims relate to marketing or sales activities or behavior and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
As a result, claim 1 and 10 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 2-7 and 9 further narrow the abstract idea above relating to certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include information processing apparatus, storage device, communication interface, controller, display device. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 and 10 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two. The element for storing data amount to insignificant extrasolution data gathering/storing/presenting activities to the judicial exception
The limitations of, “in response to activation of a product order screen to display the product order screen on the display device, the product order screen including a plurality of product display fields in which product information and one or more operable objects to designate a number of orders are displayed for each of a plurality of orderable products, which includes the detected product, display a marker associated with the detected product on the product ordering screen, the marker indicating that increased demand is expected for the detected product and located at a position corresponding to a product display field for the detected product, and in response to selection of the marker, cause the display device to display a demand forecasting screen for the detected product, the demand forecasting screen indicating a correlation of the product sales data of the detected product with the expected demand for the detected product, “ fail to change the function of the display in a meaningful way that goes beyond a general link to display technology or beyond generic and routine display functions for displaying information. Because the claimed display functions are directed to the basic functions of display technology, the claims do not improve the functioning of the display and do not improve the technical field of visualization.
Claims 2-7, and 9 include no additional elements beyond those recited with respect to independent claims 1. As a result, Claims 1-7, and 9-10 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 and 10 do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 and 10 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements include information processing apparatus, storage device, communication interface, controller, display device. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea; The claim element for “storing” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because storing data is well-understood routine, and conventional computing activity in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 and 10 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
In the added limitation, the activation of a screen, displaying a marker, selecting the marker, and displaying a screen, fail to change the function of the display in a meaningful way that goes beyond a general link to display technology or beyond generic and routine display functions for displaying information, and does not amount to significantly more because based on case law in MPEP 2106.05(d) transmitting a display, even an updated display, is well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
Claims 2-7, 9 include no additional elements beyond those recited with respect to independent claims 1. As a result, Claims 1-7, 9-10 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, Claims 1-7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Prior Art Section
The independent claims would overcome prior art and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT ROSS whose telephone number is (571) 270-1555. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM E.S.T..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu, can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Scott Ross/
Examiner - Art Unit 3623
/RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623